PA-28-140 to Juneau.

Al G wrote:
By the way, I think that photo is photo-shopped, I didn't know there was
that much sky up there. I have never seen it from the ground. To the OP, I
found these:

I took it myself from the right seat of a 172, so I know it isn't. A
shame you've never see a bright sunny day in Juneau. They're gorgeous.

Some more online resources:

http://www.alaska.faa.gov/fai/airports.htm
http://www.dot.alaska.gov/stwdav/AirportList.shtml
http://www.seizethesky.com/alaskan/forward.htm

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
...
Al G wrote:
By the way, I think that photo is photo-shopped, I didn't know there was
that much sky up there. I have never seen it from the ground. To the OP,
I found these:

I took it myself from the right seat of a 172, so I know it isn't. A shame
you've never see a bright sunny day in Juneau. They're gorgeous.

Some more online resources:

http://www.alaska.faa.gov/fai/airports.htm
http://www.dot.alaska.gov/stwdav/AirportList.shtml
http://www.seizethesky.com/alaskan/forward.htm

You really took that? I thought it was from the postcard I saw in the
tourist shop downtown.
a VERY nice shot. How long were you there before it cleared up?

Al G

If you are shooting aerials, you may want to consider this latest
advance in photography: chemical imaging ribbon.

LOL... I hadn't heard that one before

It uses an advanced
molecular process and has extremely high resolution, maybe four to ten
times what even high end digital cameras have. This allows enlargements
to be made much bigger, and from smaller areas of the picture. The
imaging material is easy to change without upgrading the entire camera.

I've also heard that it provides Foveon-like 'true color' reproduction
by recording R B and G values at each and every location on the image,
meaning its immune to bayerization artifacts. Beyond that, in
standard SLR cameras, it tends to have larger sensors, extracting more
information from any given lens (assuming the lens can provide a large
enough image circle.

While Overall image "Test-Bench" resolution tends to be higher, this
is largely because of the greater sensor size, encoding more net
information from the lens's image circle, rather than actually
encoding more lpmm^2. While certain lens/imager combinations _CAN_
render higher absolute resolution than digital sensors, these tend to
be impractical setups in an SLR format, where reflex/shutter vibration
quickly eats away at any extra available resolution.

There are a few downsides though. Signal to noise ratio tends to be
substantially higher across the entire range of sensitivities. Color
Balance, Resolution and sensitivity are set at time of manufacture,
and cannot be changed on the fly. Not to mention, actually seeing
your image after the shot takes a factor of 2 x 10^5 _TIMES_ longer,
and at separate cost.

Not to mention, these imager strips don't tend to mount well on
gimbals, meaning that Image stabilization (Useful when shooting from a
moving aircraft) must be applied to each lens at great expense, rather
than in the imager itself. Negating some of the cost savings.



I mean this entirely tongue in cheek... I spent many years shooting,
and enjoying, film. I will always appreciate the meticulous art that
goes into a good Large-format Print, and I am taking my 120 Practicon
with me.

But, for my mainline shooting- shooting to capture an image, rather
than photography for the art and process of photography, I've made the
switch and I'm happy with it.

Great post though

-Scott

Thank you so much guys... I just read the 'seizethesky' article
completely.

Wow... Its clear to me that what I had in mind as a 'neat vacation' is
much more of a serious adventure, and I have a lot of work to do to
prepare.

Thanks again.

-SCott

Al G wrote:
You really took that? I thought it was from the postcard I saw in the
tourist shop downtown.

Yeah, right... There's a reason I called it a snapshot - taken with a
junk camera with poor lighting conditions. Should see the shot of Denali
out the front window of the 182 the time I flew it up there.
Unfortunately I don't have it online.

a VERY nice shot. How long were you there before it cleared up?

Actually, I've been to SE Alaska so many times I don't recall which trip
that was. Probably late 80s or early 90s. Believe it or not, they string
days like that together in the summer on a not-uncommon basis. Just
gotta get lucky and hit one. But this one must have been on the edge of
winter judging by how low the snow is showing and how high the shadows
are. Probably early spring.

EridanMan wrote:
Thank you so much guys... I just read the 'seizethesky' article
completely.

Wow... Its clear to me that what I had in mind as a 'neat vacation' is
much more of a serious adventure, and I have a lot of work to do to
prepare.

Yeah, she wrote a great story on that site. It's part of what inspired
my trip. Don't let any of this intimidate you, though. It's a trip well
worth taking. Just accept that the weather will be your master and it
will dictate your schedule enroute.

"EridanMan" wrote in message Thank you for the
advice... Are there any websites or forums I could
go to for specific information about flying in Alaska? Routes/Weather/
Etc? Google searching hasn't lead to anything definitive.



Try this:
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/alaska

"Curator"

I've also heard that it provides Foveon-like 'true color' reproduction
by recording R B and G values at each and every location on the image,
meaning its immune to bayerization artifacts.

In fact, it uses an advanced three dimensional data storage structure to
hold color information.

Beyond that, in standard SLR cameras,
it tends to have larger sensors, extracting more
information from any given lens

This also alters the focusing parameters, allowing more control over
depth of field (though admittedly, for aviation photos, this should not
be much of a consideration!)

While Overall image "Test-Bench" resolution tends to be higher, this
is largely because of the greater sensor size

Some cameras take advantage of this by halving the sensor area, thus
doubling the number of images on each imaging ribbon.

While certain lens/imager combinations _CAN_
render higher absolute resolution than digital sensors, these tend to
be impractical setups in an SLR format, where reflex/shutter vibration
quickly eats away at any extra available resolution.

A true digital SLR is not immune to vibration either, as their
mechanical components are the same. And chemical imaging ribbon is
available in a wide variety of form factors to fit non-SLR cameras,
including ultra high resolution video.

There are a few downsides though. Signal to noise ratio tends to be
substantially higher across the entire range of sensitivities.

Well, no. I've found that the better digital cameras do provide better
signal amplification and can capture images at very low light settings
(though the less expensive ones still struggle). However, at normal
light levels, the chemical imaging ribbon has far greater exposure
depth, or brightness bandwidth. It does however take some skill to
extract the information, whereas in the digital realm, all it takes is
the push of a button.

Color Balance, Resolution and sensitivity
are set at time of manufacture,
and cannot be changed on the fly.

This is true, and is one reason that professional photographers often
carry several cameras to a single event. (The other reason, of course,
is it looks cool!)

Not to mention, these imager strips don't tend to mount well on
gimbals, meaning that Image stabilization (Useful when shooting from a
moving aircraft) must be applied to each lens at great expense, rather
than in the imager itself. Negating some of the cost savings.

I had not considered that, as I hadn't really explored image
stabilization much. There is no technical reason I can think of that
the stablization cannot be applied to the lens mount, since after all,
in either case, one is changing the relationship between the lens and
the imager. Einsten had a theory of relativity that might apply if the
vibration is fast enough.

I spent many years shooting, and enjoying, film...
But, for my mainline shooting [...] I've made the
switch and I'm happy with it.

Yes, I too have largely switched to digital, since my chemical ribbon
image aquisition device has succomed to mechanical failure. I've taken
lots more digital pictures, and it can be said that I've acquired more
digital pixels than chemical ones (though the digital ones are spread
out over more images)

...and I am taking my 120 Practicon with me....

Keep an eye out for a very promising new development in image capture -
large scale rigid transparant emulsion base, or "Lascar TEB". Utilizing
technology similar to the high resolution plexiglass displays popular in
VFR aircraft (and underused by IFR pilots). Still in the experimental
stage, the instrumentation is still bulky, but images can be captured in
incredible detail.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.